POLITICAL DYNAMICS AND VOTER BEHAVIOR IN GENERAL ELECTIONS FOLLOWING PARLIAMENTARY DISSOLUTION IN THAILAND
Keywords:
Political Dynamics, Voter BehaviorAbstract
This study examines the political dynamics and voter behavior in Thailand’s general elections following the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Parliamentary dissolution often occurring amidst political tension, intra-governmental conflict, or strategic maneuvering by the executive branch—serves not only as a constitutional mechanism but also as a catalyst for significant political realignment. The dissolution triggers a phase of heightened uncertainty, compelling political parties, candidates, and voters to respond rapidly to new political realities. These shifting conditions influence how voters interpret political information, evaluate party performance, and ultimately make their electoral decisions within a compressed time frame.
The study employs three principal theoretical frameworks Political Behavior, Political Communication, and Political Opportunity Structure to analyze the complex interplay of structural forces and individual-level factors shaping voter behavior. Findings reveal that the shifting political opportunity structure following dissolution significantly affects the strategies of political actors, the intensity of electoral competition, and the cognitive processes through which voters form preferences. Changes in electoral rules, candidate positioning, and policy messaging contribute to a dynamic political environment marked by accelerated decision-making. In this context, voters place increasing emphasis on credibility, policy stability, governance performance, and the perceived capacity of political actors to address economic concerns such as inflation, cost of living, and overall economic security.
Furthermore, the study highlights the transformative role of digital media particularly social networking platforms—as central instruments of contemporary political communication. Social media functions as a primary conduit for political information, agenda setting, framing, and candidate image construction. Its capacity for rapid dissemination of information significantly influences public perception and political discourse. However, this digital ecosystem also intensifies risks associated with misinformation, selective exposure, and the formation of Echo Chambers. These phenomena contribute to heightened political polarization, shaping voter decision-making through emotional, ideological, and identity-based cues rather than through rational evaluation of policies or performance indicators.
The findings suggest that electoral behavior in the post-dissolution period is characterized by heightened responsiveness to political uncertainty and accelerated information processing. Younger generations—who constitute an increasingly influential segment of the electorate—play a pivotal role, driven by their reliance on digital media and their preference for political messages framed in accessible, interactive formats. Political parties must therefore adapt their communication strategies, policy narratives, and campaign mechanisms to align with these evolving behavioral patterns.
In conclusion, understanding the political dynamics and voter behavior following parliamentary dissolution is essential for analyzing the trajectory of Thailand’s democratic development. The interaction of structural political change, digital media ecosystems, and shifting voter expectations underscores the complexity of contemporary electoral politics. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how uncertainty, media environments, and political institutions collectively shape voter behavior in Thailand, offering insights relevant to political actors, policymakers, and scholars examining democratic processes in rapidly changing societies.
References
Aisen, A., & Veiga, F. J. (2013). How does political instability affect economic
growth? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 151–167.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and
democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press.
Bakshy, E., Messing, S., & Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse
news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6239), 1130–1132.
Banducci, S., Franklin, M., & Stevens, D. (2016). Electoral behavior. In M. Gallagher & P. Mitchell (Eds.), The politics of electoral systems (pp. 281–310). Oxford University Press.
Boonpunth, K. (2019). Thailand’s political polarization and the transformation of
electoral competition. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 4(3), 249–265.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American
voter. University of Chicago Press.
Chambers, P. (2003). Local leadership and political trust in Southeast Asia. Asian
Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 23–41.
Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford
University Press.
Chanchai, W. (2021). Political participation and digital engagement among Thai
voters: Changing patterns in the post-coup period. Journal of Asian Politics and Policy, 13(2), 145–164.
Dalton, R. J. (2013). The apartisan American: Dealignment and changing
electoral politics. CQ Press.
Diamond, L. (2019). Ill winds: Saving democracy from Russian rage, Chinese
ambition, and American complacency. Penguin Press.
Enli, G. (2017). Mediated authenticity: How the media constructs reality in
politics. Digital Journalism, 5(3), 321–339.
Fernquest, J. (2020). Political mobilization in Thailand: Youth movements and
the digital sphere. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 42(3), 375–403.
Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. Yale
University Press.
Funston, J. (2001). Thailand’s political development: A mix of continuity and
change. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 23(3), 421–440.
Human Rights Watch. (2023). Thailand: Political landscape and civil liberties
after the dissolution of parliament. HRW.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2016). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and
authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
Ishiyama, J. (2018). Comparative politics: Principles of democracy and
democratization (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Kitschelt, H. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-
nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85.
Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the
data of democracy. Oxford University Press.
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political
communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155–177.
Lewis-Beck, M., & Stegmaier, M. (2000). Economic determinants of electoral
outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 183–219.
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes
after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
McCargo, D., & Ukrist, P. (2005). The Thaksinization of Thailand. NIAS Press.
McCurley, C., & Mondak, J. (1995). Inspected by #118406: The role of candidate
traits in voter decision-making. Political Research Quarterly, 48(4), 841–850.
Montesano, M., & Chongvilaivan, A. (2014). Political change in Thailand:
Democracy and participation. ISEAS.
Nishizaki, Y. (2022). Electoral change and local political networks in the provinces of Thailand. Asian Survey, 62(1), 95–120.
Office of the Election Commission of Thailand. (2023). Report on the 2023 Thai
general election: Voter turnout, party performance, and electoral behavior. ECT.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (2017). Thailand: Economy and politics. Oxford
University Press.
Pongsudhirak, T. (2020). Thailand’s political confrontation and electoral
dynamics in the post-junta era. Journal of Democracy, 31(1), 125–139.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. Simon & Schuster.
Reilly, B. (2006). Democracy and diversity: Political engineering in the Asia-
Pacific. Oxford University Press.
Rüland, J. (2000). Political networks and grassroots politics in Southeast Asia.
Asian Survey, 40(3), 475–495.
Schedler, A. (2013). The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting
electoral authoritarianism. Oxford University Press.
Stokes, S. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics
with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315–325.
Tejapira, K. (2021). Thailand’s political culture and new voter alignment in the
digital age. Asian Studies Review, 45(4), 567–585.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious
politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious
politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2023). Democracy Index: Thailand country
profile. EIU.
Ting, M., & Pattrarat, K. (2021). Political dissolution, party strategy, and voter
repositioning in Thailand. Asian Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 183–202.
Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton
University Press.
Vaccari, C. (2020). Digital politics in Western democracies: A comparative study.
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media.
Princeton University Press.
Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of
Communication, 60(3), 556–576.
